Error, stress, and teamwork in medicine and aviation

Sexton, J. B. (2000). Error, stress, and teamwork in medicine and aviation: cross sectional surveys. BMJ.

Type

Journal article

Intellectual base

Primary research

Year

2000

DOI

10.1136/bmj.320.7237.745

DOI registrant

BMJ

Link

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7237.745

Cited by

2 citations across 2 artifacts.

Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.

Domain-specific

• Assembly Bonus Effect
  • CRM is now a global standard in commercial aviation and has been adapted into surgical and other high-stakes teams

    This sourceThe aviation-to-medicine comparison that motivated CRM-style team training in operating theatres and intensive care - surveying over 30,000 cockpit crew against 1,033 medical staff in five countries - while cautioning that aviation team training needs validating before transfer; the 'global standard' and 'has been adapted' claims are not established by it.

    Supported in partVerified against the source

    Read by an automated reader; not a human review. How support was checked

• Authority Bias
  • systematized the applied evidence: the pattern of authority-cue deference spans advertising (the "doctor recommends" trope), medical and surgical hierarchy (where junior staff fail to challenge senior-staff errors at documented cost to patient safety)

    This sourceThe cross-sectional survey comparing hospital and aviation crews, which found consultant surgeons markedly more accepting of steep hierarchies than pilots or intensive-care staff.

    Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract

    “Most pilots (97%) and intensive care staff (94%) rejected steep hierarchies (in which senior team members are not open to input from junior members), but only 55% of consultant surgeons rejected such hierarchies.”

    Read by an automated reader; not a human review. How support was checked

Verification

Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.

Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 2 of 2 citations: 2 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.

Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.

See how references were verified.

Registry ID ref:997fdbdfb637 · see in the full table